On a horse, with a sword

Quite excited by the discovery as I have no photos of him this young, but now the puzzle of figuring out where to go from here. This is very different from the long list of postmen uniforms in the family tree, and I was wondering if this is the right sub-reddit to ask this question? I'd be very grateful if someone is able to point me in the right direction.

In a recent article Graham Allison and Niall Ferguson propose that the next US President should establish a council of academic historians to advise on policy, and furthermore that such "applied history", as they call it, should become an established subdiscipline and be taught in universities (indeed they hint that it soon will be at their own, Harvard).

Niall Ferguson is, of course, a well-known and divisive figure in the historical world. I had to google Graham Allison, but it turns out he's a Harvard political scientist, whose major academic contributions seem to have come in the 1970s, followed by a career as a foreign policy analyst in the Bush Sr and Clinton administrations.

While I'm sympathetic to the idea of historians being more vocal in the public sphere, because I believe the study of history is valuable and helps us to better understand the world, this proposal seems far more methodologically dubious than Gouldi and Armitage's 2014 History Manifesto, which had similar ambitions for history as a discipline informing policy.

So what do you think /r/AskHistorians?

Here is a good example. This is Als Church, which was originally built in the 1300's, and has been refurbished and extended several times since then. A lot of churches around Denmark look very similar, with the rendered white walls and blocky triangle roof ends. My question is how did they all come to have that distinct look, and what would they have looked like over time?

(I couldn't find anywhere else to post this question, so I hope it's still appropriate here!)

[I asked a question here] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4w7zhz/are_there_any_examples_of_undesirable_heirs_to_a/?st=irh7d32t&sh=62e60e5d) but I wasn't aware about the rule against asking "example questions", so I'm rephrasing it to be a more specific question.

I was thinking about Carlos II of Spain (also known as "Charles, the Bewitched" for his numerous deformities, mental infirmity and health problems). He would eventually become King, but it seems to me that allowing for someone like him to become King would be a mistake (indeed, it was one of the factors that lead to the War of the Spanish Succession after his death).

Maybe it would have been desirable for the political elite and nobles of Spain to remove him from the line of succession, or if you were more pragmatic, kill him in an "accident" and say he had a seizure, which he was plagued with throughout his life.

This got me thinking. Was there any effort to or consideration in quietly killing him off or removing him from the line of succession and finding someone else to be a successor? Or indeed was it useful for the Spanish political elite to have a weak-willed King they could act as regents for in his place?

http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/american_Gelbke_pistols.jpg

I was watching this documentary about the Colosseum and they were talking about how tickets would guide you to the entrance to your section.

I'm wondering what form the tickets took. It seems like it would be a logistical nightmare to provide people with tickets and to confirm that they didn't sneak into the more prestigious sections. Can someone point me towards more information about it? My googling has got me nothing but tickets for modern viewings of the colosseum.